don't suggest erroneous trailing comma after ..
#81103
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
In rust-lang#76612, suggestions were added for missing fields in patterns. However, the suggestions are being inserted just at the end of the last field in the pattern—before any trailing comma after the last field. This resulted in the "if you don't care about missing fields" suggestion to recommend code with a trailing comma after the field ellipsis (`..,`), which is actually not legal ("`..` must be at the end and cannot have a trailing comma")! Incidentally, the doc-comment on `error_unmentioned_fields` was using `you_cant_use_this_field` as an example field name (presumably copy-paste inherited from the description of Issue rust-lang#76077), but the present author found this confusing, because unmentioned fields aren't necessarily unusable. The suggested code in the diff this commit introduces to `destructuring-assignment/struct_destructure_fail.stderr` doesn't work, but it didn't work beforehand, either (because of the "found reserved identifier `_`" thing), so you can't really call it a regression; it could be fixed in a separate PR. Resolves rust-lang#78511.
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
davidtwco
approved these changes
Jan 18, 2021
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 14eb94f has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
estebank
reviewed
Jan 18, 2021
Comment on lines
+35
to
36
| LL | Struct { a, b _ } = Struct { a: 1, b: 2 }; | ||
| | ^^^ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is an unapplicable suggestion now :-/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
From @zackmdavis's description:
The suggested code in the diff this commit introduces to destructuring-assignment/struct_destructure_fail.stderr doesn't work, but it didn't work beforehand, either (because of the "found reserved identifier _" thing), so you can't really call it a regression; it could be fixed in a separate PR.
That seemed reasonable to me, I figured that this could be solved in a follow-up.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah! That's what I get for skip-reading.
|
@bors r- to try and address the small regression I noticed. |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
@bors r=davidtwco |
|
📌 Commit 14eb94f has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
m-ou-se
added a commit
to m-ou-se/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 18, 2021
don't suggest erroneous trailing comma after `..` In rust-lang#76612, suggestions were added for missing fields in patterns. However, the suggestions are being inserted just at the end of the last field in the pattern—before any trailing comma after the last field. This resulted in the "if you don't care about missing fields" suggestion to recommend code with a trailing comma after the field ellipsis (`..,`), which is actually not legal ("`..` must be at the end and cannot have a trailing comma")! Incidentally, the doc-comment on `error_unmentioned_fields` was using `you_cant_use_this_field` as an example field name (presumably copy-paste inherited from the description of Issue rust-lang#76077), but the present author found this confusing, because unmentioned fields aren't necessarily unusable. The suggested code in the diff this commit introduces to `destructuring-assignment/struct_destructure_fail.stderr` doesn't work, but it didn't work beforehand, either (because of the "found reserved identifier `_`" thing), so you can't really call it a regression; it could be fixed in a separate PR. Resolves rust-lang#78511. r? `@davidtwco` or `@estebank`
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
estebank
added a commit
to estebank/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 26, 2021
Account for parser recovered struct and tuple patterns to avoid invalid suggestion. Follow up to rust-lang#81103.
JohnTitor
added a commit
to JohnTitor/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 28, 2021
…etrochenkov Tweak suggestion for missing field in patterns Account for parser recovered struct and tuple patterns to avoid invalid suggestion. Follow up to rust-lang#81103.
zaharidichev
pushed a commit
to zaharidichev/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 15, 2021
Account for parser recovered struct and tuple patterns to avoid invalid suggestion. Follow up to rust-lang#81103.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In #76612, suggestions were added for missing fields in patterns. However, the suggestions are being inserted just at the end
of the last field in the pattern—before any trailing comma after the last field. This resulted in the "if you don't care about missing fields" suggestion to recommend code with a trailing comma after the field ellipsis (
..,), which is actually not legal ("..must be at the end and cannot have a trailing comma")!Incidentally, the doc-comment on
error_unmentioned_fieldswas usingyou_cant_use_this_fieldas an example field name (presumably copy-paste inherited from the description of Issue #76077), but the present author found this confusing, because unmentioned fields aren't necessarily unusable.The suggested code in the diff this commit introduces to
destructuring-assignment/struct_destructure_fail.stderrdoesn't work, but it didn't work beforehand, either (because of the "found reserved identifier_" thing), so you can't really call it a regression; it could be fixed in a separate PR.Resolves #78511.
r? @davidtwco or @estebank